whom twelve centuries have given the name of Great, one who, with St. Leo,
stands forth out of the ancient line of St. Peter's heirs as an especially
legislative mind. Every Catholic is bound to take his words without
suspicion. Now St. Gregory asserts, as we have seen, the right of his See
to call _any_ Bishop to account, even the four Patriarchs, in case of a
violation of the Canons; declaring at the same time that, when the Canons
are kept, the meanest Bishop is his equal in the estimation of humility.
Even while arguing against this title he says, "To all who know the Gospel
is manifest that the charge of the whole Church was entrusted by the voice
of the Lord to the holy Apostle Peter,"--"and yet he is not called
Universal Apostle;" but this title, he asserts, and the theory implied in
it, is devilish, an imitation of Satan, an anticipation of Antichrist. What
else can we conclude but that which so many other documents prove, that
this Primacy over the whole Church, the ancient and undoubted privilege of
the Bishop of Rome, was something quite different from what he is here
reprobating? For St. Gregory, least of all men, was so blind as to use
arguments which might be retorted with full force against himself. And yet,
any one reading these words of his, and not knowing whence they came, would
suppose they were written by a professed opponent of the present Papal
claims. For in these letters St. Gregory acknowledges all the Patriarchs as
co-ordinate with himself, acknowledges our Lord to be sole Head of the
Church, declares the title of Universal Bishop blasphemous and
Antichristian, expressly on the ground that it is a wrong done to the
Universal Church, to every Bishop and Priest: "If one is universal, it
remains that you are not Bishops;" declares, moreover, that St. Peter
himself is only a member of the Universal Church, as St. Paul, St. John,
St. Andrew, were other members, the heads of different communities. This
may be said to be the precise logical contradictory of De Maistre's
assertion, that "the Pope" is "the Church," in which he assuredly only
expresses the Papal idea. Rarely, indeed, is it that any controversy,
appealing to ancient times, can have a testimony on all its details so
distinct, and specific, and authoritative as this: and yet it may be said
no more than to crown the testimony of the six centuries going before it.
That during this period the Bishop of Rome was recognised to be first
Bishop of the whole Church, of very great influence, successor of St.
Peter, and standing in the same relation to his brethren the Bishops that
St. Peter stood in to his brother Apostles; this, on the whole, I believe
to be the testimony of the first six centuries, such as a person, not
wilfully blind, and who was not content to take the witness of a Father
when it suited his purpose and pass it by when it did not, would draw from
ecclesiastical documents. I have set it forth to the best of my ability, as
well where it seemed to tell against the present position of the Church of
England, as in those many points in which it supports her.
What then is our defence on her part against the charge of schism? It is
simply this. That no one can now be in the communion of Rome without
admitting this very thing which Pope Gregory declares to be blasphemous and
anti-Christian, and derogatory to the honour of every Priest. This is the
very head and front of our offending, that we refuse to allow that the Pope
is Universal Bishop. If the charge were that we refuse to stand in the same
relation to the Pope that St. Augustin of Canterbury stood in to this very
St. Gregory, that we refuse to regard and honour the successor of St.
Gregory with the same honour with which our Archbishops, as soon as they
were seated in the government of their Church, and were no longer merely
Missionaries but Primates, regarded the occupant of St. Peter's See, I
think both the separation three hundred years ago, and the present
continuance of it on our part, would, so far as this question of schism is
concerned, be utterly indefensible. But this is _not_ the point. It may
indeed be, and frequently is, so stated by unfair opponents. The real point
is, that, during the nine hundred years which elapsed between 596 and 1534
the power of the Pope, and his relation to the Bishops in his communion,
had essentially altered: had been, in fact, placed upon another basis. That
from being first Bishop of the Church, and Patriarch, originally of the ten
provinces under the Praefectus Praetorii of Italy, then of France, Spain,
Africa, and the West generally, he had claimed to be the source and channel
of grace to all Bishops, the fountain-head of jurisdiction to the whole
world, East as well as West; in fact, the 'Solus Sacerdos,' the 'Universus
Episcopus,' contemplated by St. Gregory. There is a worldwide difference
between the ancient signature of the Popes, 'Episcopus Catholicae Ecclesiae
Urbis Romae,' and that of Pope Pius at the Council of Trent, 'Ego Pius
Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus.' It has been no longer left in the choice
of any to accept his _Primacy_, without accepting his _Monarchy_, which
those who profess to follow antiquity must believe that the Bishops of
Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, Augustin and Chrysostom, the
West and the East, would have rejected with the horror shown by St. Gregory
at the first dawning of such an idea. And, whereas Holy Scripture and
antiquity present us with one accordant view of the Universal Church
governed by St. Peter and the Apostolic College, and, during the first six
centuries at least, as the Bishop of Rome is seen to exercise the Primacy
of St. Peter, so his brother-Bishops stand to him as the College of
Apostles stood to St. Peter: instead of this, which is the Church's divine
hierarchy, instituted by Christ Himself, the actual Roman Church is
governed by one Bishop who has an apostolical independent power, whilst all
the rest, who should be his brethren, are merely his delegates, receiving
from his hand the investiture of such privileges as they still retain. If
St. Gregory did not mean this by the terms 'Solus Sacerdos,' 'Universus
Episcopus,' what did he mean? That the Pope should be the only Priest who
offered sacrifice, or the only Bishop who ordained, confirmed, &c. is
physically impossible. Nor did the title of the Bishops of Constantinople
tend to this: but to claim to themselves jurisdiction over the co-ordinate
Patriarchs of the East, as the Popes have since done over the Bishops of
the whole world. We have no need to consider what is the amount of this
difficulty to Roman Catholics themselves: the same Providence which has
placed them under that obedience, has placed us outside of it. Our cause,
indeed, cannot be different now from what it was at the commencement of the
separation. If inherently indefensible then, it is so now. But if then
'severe but just,' the lapse of three centuries in our separate state may
materially affect our relative duties. I affirm my conviction, that it is
better to endure almost any degree of usurpation, provided only it be not
anti-Christian, than to make a schism: for the state of schism is a
frustration of the purposes of the Lord's Incarnation; and through this,
not only the English, and the Eastern Church, but the Roman also, lies
fettered and powerless before the might of the world, and bleeding
internally at every pore. How shall a divided Church meet and overcome the
philosophical unbelief of these last times? or, the one condition to which
victory is attached being broken, crush the deadliest attack of the old
enemy? But the schism is made; let those answer for it before Christ's
tribunal who made it. Now that it is made, I see not how a system, which is
not a true development of the ancient Patriarchal constitution, but its
antagonist, according to St. Gregory's words, can be forced upon us, on
pain of our salvation, who have the original succession of the ancient
Bishops of this realm, if any such there be, and the old Patriarchal
constitution, 'sua tantum si bona norint.' I ground our present position
simply on the appeal to tradition and the first six centuries.
Not that there is any abrupt break in the testimony of history there; but
it is necessary to put a limit somewhere. Otherwise the seventh century
supplies us with the remarkable fact of Pope Honorius condemned, by the
sixth Ecumenical Council in 681, as having connived at and favoured the
Monothelite heresy, condemned more than forty years after his death; a fact
which utterly destroys the new dogma of the infallibility of the one Roman
Pontiff by himself; and which Bellarmine and Baronius can only meet by
attempting to prove that the acts of the sixth Council have been falsified,
though they had been received for genuine by the seventh and eighth
Councils, and for nine hundred years; and the letter of St. Leo,
immediately after that Council, falsified also, in which he condemns the
Monothelites, and amongst them Honorius, "who did not adorn this
Apostolical See with the doctrine handed down from the Apostles, but
endeavoured to subvert the undefiled faith by a profane tradition." The
condemnation of the Council runs as follows:--"Having examined the letters
of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus, and the answer of Honorius to
Sergius, and having found them to be repugnant to the doctrine of the
Apostles, and to the opinion of all the Fathers, in execrating their
impious dogmas, we judge that their very names ought to be banished from
the Holy Church of God; we declare them to be smitten with anathema; and,
together with them, we judge that Honorius, formerly Pope of ancient Rome,
be anathematized, since we find, in his letter to Sergius, that he follows
in all respects his error, and authorizes his impious doctrine."[147]
It appears, likewise, that as the letter of St. Cyril was read and approved
in the third Council, and that of Pope St. Leo in the fourth, so that of
Pope St. Agathon was read and approved in the sixth, and that of Pope
Adrian the First in the seventh, A.D. 787. But here it may be well to give
Bossuet's summary. "This tradition" (_i.e._ that the supreme authority in
the Church resides in the consent of the Bishops) "we have seen to come
down from the Apostles, and descend to the first eight General Councils;
which eight General Councils are the foundation of the whole Christian
doctrine and discipline, of which the Church venerates the first four, in
St. Gregory's words, no less than the four Gospels. Nor is less reverence
due to the rest, as, guided by the same Spirit, they have a like authority.
Which eight Councils, with a great and unanimous consent, have placed the
final power of giving decisions in nothing else but in the consent of the
Fathers. Of which the six last have legitimately examined the sentence of
the Roman Pontiff even given upon Faith, and that with the approval of the
Apostolic See, the question being put in this form, as we read in the
Acts--'Are these decrees right, or not?'
"But we have seen that the judgment of a General Council never was so
reconsidered, but that all immediately yielded obedience to it. Nor was a
new inquiry ever granted to anyone after that examination, but punishment
threatened. Thus acted Constantine; thus Marcian; thus Coelestine; thus
Leo; thus all the rest, as we have seen in the Acts. The Christian world
hath acknowledged this to be certain and indubitable.
"To this we may add the testimony of the admirable Pope St. Gelasius: 'A
good and truly Christian Council once held, neither can nor ought to be
unsettled by the repetition of a new Council.' And again: 'There is no
cause why a good Council should be reconsidered by another Council, lest
the mere reconsideration should detract from the strength of its decrees.'
Thus what has received the final and certain judgment of the Church, is not
to be reconsidered; for that judgment of the Holy Spirit is reversed,
whenever it is reconsidered by a fresh judgment. But the judgment put forth
by a Roman Pontiff is such, that it has been reconsidered. It is not
therefore that ultimate and final judgment of the Church.
"Nor is that sentence of Gregory the Great less clear, comparing the four
General Councils to the four Gospels, with the reason given; 'Because being
decreed by universal consent, whoever presumes either to loose what they
bind, or bind what they loose, destroys not them but himself.'
"So then our question is terminated by the tradition of the ancient
Councils and Fathers. All should consent to the power of the Roman Pontiff,
as explained according to the decree of the Council of Florence, after the
practice of General Councils. The vast difference between the judgment of a
Council and of a Pontiff is evident, since after that of the Council no
question remains, but only the obedience of the mind brought into
captivity; but that of the Pontiff is upon examination approved, room being
given to object,--which was to be proved."[148]
Here the real question at issue is, whether the Bishop of Rome be First
Bishop, or Monarch, of the Church. Now, I have endeavoured to delineate,
from the Fathers and from Councils, what the true Primacy of the Roman See
is. What is now required from us to admit as terms of communion is--"That
the ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends immediately from the Pope;"
"the government of the Church is monarchical, therefore all authority
resides in one, and from him is derived unto the rest;" "there is a great
difference between the succession to Peter and that to the rest of the
Apostles; for the Roman Pontiff properly succeeds Peter not as Apostle, but
as ordinary Pastor of the whole Church; and therefore the Roman Pontiff has
jurisdiction from Him from whom Peter had it: but Bishops do not properly
succeed the Apostles, as the Apostles were not ordinary, but extraordinary,
and, as it were, delegated Pastors, to whom there is no succession.
Bishops, however, are said to succeed the Apostles, not properly in that
manner in which one Bishop succeeds another, and one king another, but in
another way, which is two-fold. First, in respect of the holy Order of the
Episcopate; secondly, from a certain resemblance and proportion: that is,
as when Christ lived on earth, the twelve Apostles were the first under
Christ, then the seventy-two Disciples: so now the Bishops are first under
the Roman Pontiff, after them Priests, then Deacons, &c. But it is proved
that Bishops succeed to the Apostles so, and not otherwise; for they have
no part of the true Apostolic authority. Apostles could preach in the whole
world, and found Churches ... this cannot Bishops." ... "Bishops succeed to
the Apostles in the same manner as Priests to the seventy-two
Disciples."[149] Again: "But, if the Supreme Pontiff be compared with the
rest of the Bishops, he is deservedly said to possess the plenitude of
power, because the rest have fixed regions over which they preside, and
also a fixed power; but he is set over the whole Christian world, and
possesses, in its completeness and plenitude, that power which Christ left
on earth for the good of the Church."[150] He proceeds to prove this by
those passages of Scripture:--'Thou art Peter,' &c.; 'Feed my sheep,' &c.;
which we have seen St. Augustin explaining as said to St. Peter in the
person of the Church, while he expressly denies that they are said to him
merely as an individual. "These keys not one man but the unity of the
Church received:" "he was not the only one among the Disciples who was
thought worthy to feed the Lord's sheep," &c. What Bellarmine here says,
is, assuredly, both the true Roman view, and moreover _absolutely necessary
to justify that Church in the attitude she assumes and the measures she
authorizes towards other parts of the Church. And if it be the ancient
Catholic doctrine, it does justify her_. That it is _not_ the ancient
doctrine, I think I have already shown; but let us hear what Bossuet says
of it. "One objection of theirs remains to be explained, that Bishops
borrow their power and jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff, and therefore,
although united with him in an Ecumenical Council, can do nothing against
the root and source of their own authority, but are only present as his
Counsellors; and that the force of the decree, as well in matters of faith
as in other matters, lies in the power of the Roman Pontiff. Which fiction
falls of itself to the ground, even from this, that it was unheard of in
the early ages, and began to be introduced into theology in the thirteenth
century; that is, after men preferred generally to act upon philosophical
reasonings, and those very bad, before consulting the Fathers.[151]
"But to this innovation is opposed, first, what is related in the Acts of
the Apostles respecting that Council of Apostles, which the letter of St.
Coelestine to the Council of Ephesus, and the proceedings of the fifth
Ecumenical Council, proved to be as it were repeated and represented in all
other Councils. But if any one says that, in this Council, the Apostles
were not set by Christ to be true judges, but to be the counsellors of
Peter, he is too ridiculous.[152]
"Secondly, is opposed that fact which we have proved, that the decrees and
judgments of Roman Pontiffs _de fide_ were suspended by the convocation of
an Ecumenical Council, were reconsidered by its authority, and were only
approved and confirmed after examination made and judgment given. Which
things undoubtedly prove that they sat there not as counsellors of the
Pope, but as judges of Papal decrees.
"And they must indeed be legitimately called together, that they may not
meet tumultuously; but, when once called together, they judge by the
authority of the Holy Spirit, not of the Pope: they pronounce anathemas,
not by authority of the Pope, but of Christ; and we have seen this so often
pressed upon us by the Acts, that we are weary of repeating it.
"Add to this that expression of the first Council of Arles to St.
Sylvester: 'Had you judged together with us, our assembly had exulted with
greater joy:' and in the very heading of the Council to the same Sylvester:
'What we have decreed with common consent, we signify to your charity.'
Relying then on this authority of their Priesthood, they judge concerning
most important matters; that is, the observation of the Lord's passover,
that it may be kept on one day all over the world: concerning the
non-iteration of Baptism, and the discipline of the Churches. Instances of
this kind occur everywhere. But it is a known fact, that even by particular
Councils, where the Pope presided, his decrees, even when present, were
examined and confirmed by consent; the Fathers equally with him judged,
decreed, defined, and we have seen this a thousand times written on the
Acts.
"But in a matter so clear, they have only one thing to object drawn out of
antiquity, the saying of St. Innocent, 'that Peter is the author of the
Episcopal name and honour.'[153] And again,[154] 'whence the Episcopate
itself and all the authority of that name sprung.' And of St. Leo,[155] 'If
he willed that anything should be enjoyed by the other heads (that is, the
Apostles) in common with him (Peter), he never gave save through Peter
whatever he denied not to the rest.' And elsewhere also, 'that Christ
granted to the rest of the Apostles the ministry of preaching on this
condition, that he poured into them, as into the whole body, his gifts from
Peter, as from the head.'[156] Whence also came that expression of Optatus
of Milevi: 'For the good of unity, the blessed Peter was thought worthy to
be preferred to all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the
kingdom of heaven to be imparted to the rest,'[157]--and that of Gregory of
Nyssa, 'Through Peter He gave to the Bishops the keys of heavenly
honours.'[158] And that of St. Caesarius of Arles to Pope Symmachus: 'As
from the person of the blessed Apostle Peter the Episcopate takes its
beginning, so is it necessary that by suitable rules of discipline your
Holiness should plainly show to every Church what they ought to
observe.'[159]
"If they push these and such like expressions to the utmost, they will come
to assert that the Apostles were appointed by Peter, not by Christ, or by
Christ through Peter, but not by Him immediately and in person: as if any
other but Christ called the Apostles, sent them, and endued them with
heavenly power by the infusion of His Spirit; and Peter and not Christ
said: 'Go ye, teach, preach, baptize, receive, and, as My Father sent me,
even so send I you.'
"I am aware that John of Turrecremata, and a few others, thinking that the
words now quoted of St. Leo and others cannot be defended by them
sufficiently, unless the Apostles also received their jurisdiction from St.
Peter, have been hurried away even into this folly, against the most
manifest truth of the Gospel. Which fiction Bellarmine himself has
confuted.
"But this being the greatest absurdity, it will appear that what follows is
the teaching of the Fathers quoted.
"First; the episcopal authority and jurisdiction is contained in the keys,
and in the power of binding and loosing, which is clear of itself.
"Secondly; it is evident from the Gospel History that Peter was the first
in whom that power was shown forth and appointed. For, although Christ said
to all the Apostles, 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' (John xx. 22,) and
'whatsoever ye bind,' &c., 'whatsoever ye loose,' &c. (Matt, xviii. 18);
yet, what He said to Peter had gone before, 'I will give to thee the keys,'
&c. (Matt. xvi. 19).
"Thirdly; both these two, that is, both what was said to Peter and what was
said to the Apostles, proceed equally from Christ: for He who said to
Peter, 'I will give to thee,' and 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind,' said also
to the Apostles, 'Receive ye,' and 'Whatsoever ye shall bind.'
"Fourthly; that is therefore true which Optatus says of Peter: 'For the
good of unity, he alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be
imparted to the rest.' For, in truth, these which were given to Peter in
the 16th Matt. were to be imparted afterwards to the Apostles, Matt. 18th,
and John 20th, but to be imparted not by Peter, but by Christ, as is clear.
"Fifthly; that also is true which Caesarius says, 'The Episcopate takes its
beginning from Peter:' he being the first in whom, through the ministry of
binding and loosing, the Episcopal power was shown forth, begun,
entrusted.'
"Sixthly; hence, also, is true what Innocent says,--'that the Episcopate,
and all the authority of that name, sprung from Peter,' because he, first
of all, was appointed or set forth as Bishop.
"Seventhly; for this cause, Peter is called by the same Innocent the author
of the Episcopate; not that he instituted it,--not that the Apostles
received the power of binding and loosing from him,--for the Scriptures
everywhere exclaim against this; but that from him was made the beginning
of establishing that power among men, and of appointing or marking out the
Episcopate.
"Eighthly; to make this clearer, and that it may be easily perceived what
means that expression, 'through Peter,' which we read in Leo, we must
review the tradition of the ancient Church, drawn from the Scriptures
themselves.
"It is plain, then, that when the Lord asked the Apostles, 'Whom say men
that I, the Son of Man, am?' Peter, the chief of all, answered in the
person of all, 'Thou art the Christ:' and afterwards Christ said to Peter,
thus representing them, 'I will give to thee,'--'Whatsoever thou shalt
bind:' by which it appears that in these words, not Peter only, but in
Peter, their chief, and answering for all, all the Apostles and their
successors were endued with the Episcopal power and jurisdiction.
"All which Augustin includes when he writes, 'All being asked, Peter alone
answered, Thou art Christ, and to him is said, I will give to thee, &c., as
if he alone received the power of binding and loosing, the case really
being, that he said that singly for all, and received this together with
all, as representing unity.'[160] Than which nothing can be clearer."
He then quotes passages from St. Cyprian and St. Augustin, which I have
already brought; adding, "In Peter, therefore, singly, Cyprian acknowledges
that all Bishops were instituted, and not without reason; the Episcopate,
as he everywhere attests, being one in the whole world, was instituted in
one. And this was done to establish 'the origin of unity beginning from
one,' as he says.
"But most of all does Augustin set forth and inculcate the common
tradition. For, not content with having said that once in the place above
mentioned, he is very full in setting forth this view of that doctrine.
Hence he says, 'In Peter was the sacrament of the Church;'" and other
passages I have already quoted. "Whence, everywhere in his books against
the Donatists, he says, 'The keys are given to Unity.'
"The sum, then, is this. The Apostles and Pastors of Churches being both
one and many,--one, in ecclesiastical communion, as they feed one flock;
many, being distributed through the whole world, and having allotted to
them each their own part of the one flock; therefore, power was given to
them by a two-fold ratification of Christ: first, that they may be one, in
Peter their chief, bearing the figure and the person of unity, to which has
reference that saying in the singular number, 'I will give to thee,' and
'Whatsoever thou shall bind,' &c.: secondly, that they may be many, to
which that has reference in the plural number, 'Receive ye,' and
'Whatsoever ye shall bind:' but both, personally and immediately from
Christ; since He who said, 'I will give to thee,' as to one, also said,
'Receive ye,' as to many: nevertheless, that saying came first, in which
power is given to all, in that they are one: because Christ willed that
unity, most of all, should be recommended in His Church.